Re: The actual truth is that ...

On 2024-10-12 22:52:30 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/12/2024 5:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 12 Oct 2024 14:03:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/12/2024 9:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/12/24 6:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/12/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-11 21:13:18 +0000, joes said:

Am Fri, 11 Oct 2024 12:22:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/11/2024 12:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/11/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/10/2024 2:26 PM, wij wrote:

On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 17:05 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

 

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

Nope, Even software Engineering treats the funciton HHH as part of the
program DDD, and termination analysis as looking at properties of the
whole program, not a partial emulation of it.

So if we ask the exact question can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its
own return statement they would answer the counter-factual yes?

Yes. DDD reaches it, so a purported simulator should as well.
Therefore HHH is not a simulator.
 

 I tried to tell ChatGPT the same thing several times
and it would not accept this.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
 Although LLM system are prone to lying: If it told a lie
there would be an error that could be found in its reasoning.

Not necessarily in the reasoning. The error could also be in the input
material.
--
Mikko